Share This Story!

U.S. Sugar challenges Sierra Club member’s claim the company pollutes Lake Okeechobee

TALLAHASSEE - A U.S. Sugar spokeswoman on Monday blasted claims made by the Sierra Club of Florida that the sugar company destroyed Lake Okeechobee and that it was dragging its feet on a land deal that could stop discharges into the Caloosahatchee...

U.S. Sugar challenges Sierra Club member’s claim the company pollutes Lake Okeechobee

Water ebbs and flows on the shoreline of a man-made beach area Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2016 at the W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam in Alva, Fla. The mayors of Lee County's six municipalities convened at a joint emergency meeting on Wednesday to discuss action items regarding freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee watershed. It’s argued that the release of dark, nutrient-laden freshwater into the watershed, damage Southwest Florida's economy and ecology. (Corey Perrine/Staff)(Photo: Corey Perrine)

TALLAHASSEE — A U.S. Sugar spokeswoman on Monday blasted claims made by the Sierra Club of Florida that the sugar company destroyed Lake Okeechobee and that it was dragging its feet on a land deal that could stop discharges into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers.

U.S. Sugar's Judy Sanchez said the Sierra Club held a public roundtable discussion last week where it falsely blamed her company for pollution in Lake Okeechobee.

"We were flabbergasted when we saw they were making claims that any farmers were pumping water into Lake Okeechobee," Sanchez said. "We don't have the ability to pump water into the lake. Only the government has that ability."

Frank Jackalone, a Sierra Club Florida senior organizing manager, said a club member did blame U.S. Sugar for the pollution, but the meeting was meant to encourage the company and the state to arrange a deal over the purchase of 153,000 acres south of Lake Okeechobee. The land could be used to store water from Lake Okeechobee when its shores are bloated by heavy rainfall. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers discharges lake water into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers, but the freshwater wreaks havoc on coastal estuaries that rely on a unique blend of salinity to survive.

Historic rainfall in Central Florida in January prompted the Corps to discharge freshwater into the rivers. Gov. Rick Scott offered a plan to push water from Lake Okeechobee south to three conservation areas just north of Everglades National Park. However, that plan stalled when water already in the conservation areas failed to drain fast enough. Jackalone says the land from U.S. Sugar could be used for retention and would no longer force the Corps to use the rivers as relief. The Corps deems the lake safe when it's between the levels of 12.5 feet to 15.5 feet.

If the state bought that land, "There would be no discharges at all," Jackalone said. "That's what we're trying to say here."

The state could have bought 180,000 acres of U.S. Sugar land south of Lake Okeechobee in 2008, but part of that deal expired in October 2015. The state can still buy the remaining 153,000 acres, but it has not yet made an offer, according to a University of Florida Water Institute report.

But the U.S. Sugar land is not suitable for that purpose, said Robert Brown, a technical adviser for the Everglades Agricultural Area — a group of farmers that own 700,000 acres where sugar cane is grown. Brown, speaking at the request of U.S. Sugar leaders Monday, said the state did not want the land because it would be too costly to cultivate for water retention purposes. Brown, who also served as an assistant director of the South Florida Water Management District, said the Legislature wants to build smaller conservation areas north of Lake Okeechobee, where some believe the pollution originates.

The Legislature included roughly $200 million in the state budget approved Friday that would provide money to restore portions of the Everglades and create smaller water retention areas north of Lake Okeechobee.